update_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' but does not specify whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether previous versions are preserved, or any auth or rate limit constraints. The word 'or' may mislead about updating multiple fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 10 words, making it very concise with no wasted words. However, it could be improved by clarifying the 'or/and' ambiguity. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values (e.g., updated note or success status) and any side effects. It does not. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation, such as whether the update is idempotent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds minimal value beyond repeating 'title' and 'content', and the phrase 'title or content' slightly contradicts the schema which allows both to be provided simultaneously. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('existing Tilnote note'), and mentions the specific fields (title or content). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_note' (creation) and 'get_note' (retrieval).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_note' for new notes or 'search_notes' for finding notes. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., note must exist) and does not clarify that both title and content can be updated simultaneously despite the schema allowing it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.